For the Hi-Fi enthusiasts among us...

Posts
1,537
Likes
5,923
Mechanical issues aside there is a huge difference in sonic quality in the first CD players versus recent designs. When introduced the CD system was thought to just be 1's and 0' s to be decoded, all players would sound the same. Not so as we all know now. That early Sony is interesting for what it is, but sonic quality won't be at the level of a good, modern design.
You are right - and wrong.
Early Sony, like the competition, had to learn the pitfalls of the new medium. But Sony learned faster and better than many, and the top class players from the late eighties and nineties usually fare extremely well, even by today's standards.
Modern players sport cheap computer disc transports. Not my cup of tea.
 
Posts
1,537
Likes
5,923
I am in the Apple universe but that sounds too complicated for me. I just want to buy a thing with wires!
I ripped my CD collection to a Mac Mini in iTunes using Apple Lossless. Took 2 months, but the user interface works well. And nice to have a complete backup of the collection.
 
Posts
1,998
Likes
3,368
Many moons ago when I worked in high end hi-fi our shop was used for a blind listening test between the variety of formats available at the time (early 1990’s). We had an eclectic mixture of musicians, producers, journalists, engineers, etc. over to listen to the same source music played through top of the range hardware, and the playback methods were rated individually and then collated. The formats were vinyl (probably a Roksan Xerxes with a Koetsu cartridge, I can’t recall exactly), a CD transport / DAC combo, miniDisc, Digital Compact Cassette (DCC), Digital Audio Tape (DAT) and HDCD. There may even have been a Nakamichi CR7 or Dragon cassette deck…

From memory the event was set up by Sony, presumably to showcase their latest format (MiniDisc) and demonstrate how good it was. I recall an engineer explaining how good the MiniDisc format was, but, as these things go, the Philips DCC won the contest overall. Who here still uses their DCC player? 😜

As I’ve noted before, the quality of the source recording and engineering is paramount, and there are many other factors that come into play, such as room set-up. Pre 1974 vinyl sounds way better than anything manufactured up until recently - this refers to vinyl, I’m not getting into a analogue / digital argument 🙄. Of course, with lossless and all the other streaming formats sound quality is generally superb these days with only minor differences between brands and formats.

And here’s a pic of a prerecorded MiniDisc - as I’ve never owned a player it just gathers dust, I can just stream the LP now.
 
Posts
2,519
Likes
3,557
The only decent equipment I have is this 50yr old Pioneer SX-727 with a pair of 2 way Utah speakers. I never even heard of Utah speakers, looked them up and supposedly they were pretty good for their day. The receiver needs all the controls cleaned out, lots of cracking noise when you turn any of them, and the speakers probably need to be re-coned. Most likely less expensive to just replace them.
 
Posts
27,787
Likes
70,588
Linn DSM is great. I use them with a roon music server with local stored music on a hard drive + can stream lossles or Spotify (via Linn). I have three of them networked in my house. Have used apple, bluesound, and sonos as well but the Linn is about a million times better. With Linn, you would need to run network cable

Agreed - I would be looking for a storage device separate from the playback device. I use a QNAP drive where all my CD's are ripped, and where I also store 24 bit music files. I stream using the Linn Klimax DS from that and from Tidal.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,925
The only decent equipment I have is this 50yr old Pioneer SX-727 with a pair of 2 way Utah speakers. I never even heard of Utah speakers, looked them up and supposedly they were pretty good for their day. The receiver needs all the controls cleaned out, lots of cracking noise when you turn any of them, and the speakers probably need to be re-coned. Most likely less expensive to just replace them.
Cleaning the pots is easy with a can of Deoxit- look it up, you can do it yourself as long as there isn’t anything blocking the pots.
Utah were a decent brand, on par with EV of the day. If they are earlier than the pioneer (60’s and not 70’s) they will most likely have doped accordion surrounds- no need to replace the surrounds and as long as there is no rubbing of the voice coil (just push the cones strait in about a 1/2” with a tri-pod finger position around the dust cap and it shouldn’t generate any rubbing sounds) there wouldn’t be a need to recone.
The two problems with these older speakers (pre- foam surrounds) is that the caps in them dry out (which is usually a simple first order single cap crossover) and the cabinets suck. They were commonly put into cabinets way too small for the cubic volume they need to creat real bass, nor properly ported.
I have a pair of EV coaxials that I pulled from a cheap pair of 60’s small cabinets and when I put them on baffle boards in the corners of my room as an experiment- I was shocked at how good they sounded with my MC30’s. I then replaced the single cap in the crossover and the top end came to life with all the horn zip and sparkle they are known for.
 
Posts
803
Likes
2,212
Or just get rid of the jewel cases and keep the CDs in wallets to save space? A hi-fi consultant I spoke to yesterday argued there’s no audio substitute for CDs. None of the storage playback devices give anything like the sound level of even a half decent transport and DAC, he says.
CDs aren’t even high-resolution, haha
 
Posts
1,537
Likes
5,923
CDs aren’t even high-resolution, haha
No, and they don't have to be either. No sonic advantages have ever been documented by using hi-res formats. But sometimes the mixes are better in hi-res! For example, my hybrid SACD DSOTM has a dynamically compressed PCM track, whereas the SACD track is untampered.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,925
No, and they don't have to be either. No sonic advantages have ever been documented by using hi-res formats. But sometimes the mixes are better in hi-res! For example, my hybrid SACD DSOTM has a dynamically compressed PCM track, whereas the SACD track is untampered.
I have a couple HDCD players and hunted down a few dozen releases in the format (some good titles). There is a difference…it’s not night and day- but a bit more nuanced and dynamic.
 
Posts
695
Likes
2,699
Here is a addition somewhat rare, when I got them the amp isn't working. Filthy and so on, the craftsmanship is incredible like Mc and marantz from the 1960s. They are matched pair from 1968~ I fixed the amp, only replaced the two parts to get going, and yes I know everything in there is almost 60 years old. Some before and after photos, I also got a ols Kenwood SA-2500, a HeathKit 343, Pioneer SX-626 and some other stuff
 
Posts
27,787
Likes
70,588
I have a couple HDCD players and hunted down a few dozen releases in the format (some good titles). There is a difference…it’s not night and day- but a bit more nuanced and dynamic.

My old Arcam Alpha 9 CD player was HDCD compatible - when you popped in an HDCD disk the difference was certainly noticeable.
 
Posts
803
Likes
2,212
No, and they don't have to be either. No sonic advantages have ever been documented by using hi-res formats. But sometimes the mixes are better in hi-res! For example, my hybrid SACD DSOTM has a dynamically compressed PCM track, whereas the SACD track is untampered.
People do say this, but all you have to do is take a brief listen on a highly resolving system to see that this is BS. For example, you can often find the same release in different sample rates on Qobuz and 16 bit sounds flat in comparison to 24 bit.
 
Posts
13,076
Likes
52,059
Or just get rid of the jewel cases and keep the CDs in wallets to save space? A hi-fi consultant I spoke to yesterday argued there’s no audio substitute for CDs. None of the storage playback devices give anything like the sound level of even a half decent transport and DAC, he says.
Years ago I bought several thousand special pvc sleeves from a jazz store in NYC that was closing for almost nothing. They allow for the booklet, CD and all paper materials. I trashed most of my Jewel boxes, keeping a few for sale or donation of cast offs. These sleeves allow my CDs to live in a much smaller space. Most new releases have done away with Jewel boxes anyway. I love the sound of both my Yamaha changer and my Marantz single deck. No plans to invest in files or streaming.
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,792
Always used Deoxit Gold in pots and always had good results- but this is a new product for me! Will have to buy a can or two
Used to use Electro-Wash back in the day. Pow-R-Wash is less expensive.
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,925
Used to use Electro-Wash back in the day. Pow-R-Wash is less expensive.
I still have a 40 year old can of tuner cleaner- that stuff is nasty! But it really is the only thing that can clean the blades on a tuner.
 
Posts
3,889
Likes
37,443

I disagree with you both! 😁 yes contact cleaners I used to use on customers gear but and it's a big one these cleaners very effectively clean carbon tracks BUT ( see I told you it was a big one) they also remove the grease that lubricates the pot shaft making the feel of the pot awful when you rotate it with no haptic ( there's a nice word) resistance / feel as you adjust the tone or volume etc.
What I have done the last 30 or so years is physically disassembled the pot and cleaned the track and wipers with isopropyl, tensioning then as needed.
You can do this several times before the tabs that hold the pots together start to look like snapping if you are very careful.
The end result is far better than the contact cleaner method and leaves the shaft grease intact preserving the tactile feel of the pot.
There is some thought that the wiper contact points and carbon track need some form of lubrication and I have played about with that, jury is still out on that one.
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,792
I'd rather replace the pot than go through that... if it's 50 years old, the grease is probably long gone, assuming was greasted to begin with. But that is a valid point, if it has damping grease in it, it should be renewed.
 
Posts
5,636
Likes
5,792
I still have a 40 year old can of tuner cleaner- that stuff is nasty! But it really is the only thing that can clean the blades on a tuner.
Ekectro-Wash isn't as bad as the stuff it replaced, Tun-O-Wash. Now that was some stuff!